Canceled FEMA Review Council Vote Leaves Flood Insurance Reforms in Limbo

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has yet to release a long-anticipated final report from its Review Council after canceling a December 11 meeting where members were expected to vote on final recommendations. As a result, FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program are operating in 2026 with no changes to existing claims-handling or disaster-response frameworks.

The FEMA Review Council was created by executive order to examine FEMA’s structure and performance, including programs such as the NFIP, and to recommend reforms aimed at improving disaster response and recovery. The December meeting had been expected to mark the final step in that process. Instead, the session was canceled without explanation, and no revised timeline for the report’s release has been publicly announced.

On January 23, one day before the council was set to expire, the White House issued a follow-up executive order extending the council’s charter until March 25, formally keeping the advisory body in place. The order does not alter FEMA’s existing authorities or funding, nor does it implement any policy changes. Without a final report, FEMA and its insurance partners continue to operate under existing rules governing claims handling, coordination with insurers, and disaster response planning.

Despite the extension of the Review Council, the agency has not provided a public timeline for its completion. FEMA did not respond to a request for comment on the status of the report.

Missed Deadlines, Unchanged Operations

While delays in the advisory process are not uncommon, recent reporting based on a copy of the Review Council’s final report, which has not yet been publicly released, suggests the council may be considering significant changes to how federal disaster aid is administered. According to Politico’s E&E News, among the proposals would be the implementation of a parametric approach to federal disaster aid, under which funding would be triggered automatically based on measurable weather conditions rather than FEMA’s traditional post-event damage assessments.

A senior insurance policy expert, whose name is being withheld, familiar with the Review Council process said the prolonged delay had led many stakeholders to doubt whether the report would ever be released at all.

The implications are significant for the NFIP, which insures roughly 4.7 million properties nationwide representing more than $1.3 trillion in total insured coverage. FEMA data show that since Jan. 31, 2025, the approximate range for total losses paid into the federal flood program is between $6.4 billion to $7.4 billion. FEMA explicitly states on their website that “The NFIP is not designed to pay for multiple catastrophic events in a single year without additional financial assistance.”

Additionally, critics of the NFIP cite its more than $20 billion debt to the Treasury Department as reason to eliminate the program and let the private sector handle all new flood-insurance policies. And that’s after Congress canceled $16 billion of the program’s debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit in 2017. Some policy proposals, including those outlined in Project 2025, argue that the current NFIP structure places undue financial strain on federal taxpayers by covering losses that exceed premium revenue.

Without new guidance from the Review Council, existing claims procedures—including adjustment standards, appeals processes, and coordination protocols—remain unchanged as FEMA looks ahead to the 2026 disaster season. That uncertainty extends beyond hurricane season.

While the 2025 hurricane season ended on November 30 without a single U.S. mainland landfall for the first time in a decade, severe weather events continue to generate disasters that require FEMA assistance year-round. For example, the recent snowstorms affecting much of the country can result in flooding due to snowmelt. As a result, FEMA and the NFIP face ongoing operational and claims-related demands even during periods traditionally viewed as outside peak storm season.

Shutdown Uncertainty Adds Pressure

The stalled review process coincided with a brief partial government shutdown tied to unresolved Department of Homeland Security funding, highlighting how FEMA operations and flood insurance administration can be affected by broader budget disputes.

Because the NFIP’s authority to issue and renew policies is tied to DHS appropriations, even short-lived funding lapses can introduce uncertainty for policyholders and insurers that rely on the federal flood program.

In previous shutdowns, the NFIP has been forced to suspend new policy issuances and renewals, disrupting real estate transactions in flood-prone areas and leaving some homeowners unable to secure coverage. For context, according to the National Association for Home Builders, there are roughly 1,300 home purchases occurring each day that rely on needing NFIP coverage. Any failure to reauthorize the NFIP will result in delays of real estate closings and flood insurance renewals.

In contrast, private flood insurers have continued to expand. During the 43-day federal government shutdown, Neptune Flood, one of the largest private flood-insurance providers, went public on the New York Stock Exchange on October 1, 2025, just as the government’s lights went out. Neptune offers flood coverage as high as $7 million, as opposed to the maximum of $250,000 offered by the federal program.

Stakeholders Question Timing And Transparency

Housing and disaster-recovery advocates say the prolonged delay raises questions not only about timing, but also about whether the final report will fully reflect input from affected communities and emergency managers.

Noah Patton, director of disaster recovery at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the delay has been frustrating for organizations that participated in the council’s discussions and provided feedback based on on-the-ground recovery experience.

“I think the delays reinforce that the administration does not currently have a clear vision for the agency,” Patton said. “That’s not an ideal situation given how broken our current disaster response and recovery systems are.”

Legislative Path Gains Attention

With the Review Council process stalled, some policymakers and stakeholders are increasingly looking toward legislative vehicles for more certainty.

Patton said he supports alternative pathways, adding that he is “very happy that Congress has been able to craft a package that addresses the needs of disaster survivors while ensuring that FEMA can nimbly respond to disasters as they occur.” He noted that many housing and disaster-recovery groups are coalescing around the bipartisan “Fixing Emergency Management for Americans (FEMA) Act.”

A spokesperson for Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington, the ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the congressman remains focused on advancing the bipartisan FEMA Act of 2025 and getting the legislation to the House floor for consideration, directing attention to his previous public statements on the FEMA Review Council.

Supporters of the legislation say it offers a more direct path to addressing FEMA operations and disaster-response readiness, including issues related to claims administration and coordination, as well as restoring FEMA’s status as being a cabinet level agency that would report directly to the president.

Real-World Recovery Concerns

While measures such as the FEMA Act of 2025 have broad support, legislative vehicles are known to move slowly in Congress. For local and regional leaders in disaster-prone areas, long-term NFIP reauthorization and overall program re-examination is of top priority.

Peter Waggonner, senior policy advisor for Greater New Orleans and co-leader of the Coalition for Sustainable Flood Insurance said FEMA’s Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology, which underpins how the National Flood Insurance Program prices policies, should be examined by a congressionally approved commission.

“There should be a body of experts that look at this methodology, help explain to people and make sure it’s using the best data sources, and make sure it’s being updated appropriately, so that there’s actual certainty for homeowners that they’re getting the price that reflects the risk…if that was enacted, then there would be a much more transparent system than the private sector could offer,” Waggonner said.

Waggoner added: “there are ways to analyze how to handle a forthcoming insurance crisis for our country, beyond what the FEMA Review Council puts out shortly…and an analysis through a congressional commission could inform the future of NFIP as well. It is just irresponsible to let NFIP sit and occasionally lapse without a formal evaluation of it.”

Looking Ahead

Until the FEMA Review Council releases its final recommendations—and Congress resolves near-term funding questions—FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program remain in a holding pattern, operating under existing rules as disaster exposure continues to rise.

For insurers, emergency managers, and communities alike, the lack of clarity raises questions about how prepared the system will be when the next major flood or catastrophe arrives.

Vetter is a Washington, D.C.–based policy researcher and writer covering insurance, financial services and congressional developments. He has also served as an intern in both the U.S. House and Senate, as well as for the state of Rhode Island.

Was this article valuable?